Carlos, On Monday 08 November 2004 16:36, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Monday 2004-11-08 at 08:39 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Then perhaps you¡d be happy to suply me with an all optical link from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in advance.
I was not referring to the last mile. To my knowledge, no consumer optical links are commercial available, at leat not in the States. I'm referring to over-capacity in the so-called Internet backbone.
I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)
Really? The quantity of data received on the SuSE-Linux-E list is a significant proportion of your link's capacity? You must be on one damn slow link!
p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the difference?
Here are the unabridged headers from your post (the one to which I'm replying) as they reach me:
I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.
OK. I guess it's "only" 1700+ bytes...
That's over 2000 bytes of overhead for each message! Adding a little styled text isn't going to make anyone go broke if they can already afford to subscribe to SuSE-Linux-E.
The headers can not be avoided.
Yes, but that's part of the point. Complaints about "bandwidth" must be evaluated in the context of the total amount of data that must be transmitted to convey a message from the list server to one of its subscribers.
The important thing that I was pointing out is the size factor between both methods. The html part is about twice as big, and that one was a small email. After one or two top postings, it soon gets over 20 Kbytes.
Again, keep things separate. Bad posting style is not a technology problem, it's a user problem. Many subscribers seem quite resistant to putting thought into properly editing their posts. And again, if we'd simply expect users to use modern software, multipart messages that add a plain-text counterpart to a styled message would be unnecessary.
And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact.
That's another part of the point. Using antiquated software is _not_ a reason to resist using a richer medium of communication. Not when it's supported by bona fide standards.
Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.
Which is silly, but nonetheless is a value judgement on the part of the list administrator. We should keep in mind, too, that with a change in proprietorship for SuSE as a whole, all these things are potentially subject to change. Perhaps Novell is more enlightened than the old SuSE folks. After all, isn't Germany part of "Old Europe?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist... I hate Bush at least as much as any fundie hates the devil, by the way.)
And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.
But I only complain about html mail, not styled mail - however, I have never seen such a thing. And the original poster used html.
Barely. But still the point applies. Electronic mail is simply one means of communication. If HTML, with its embedded style, layout and images, is a useful medium for communication--and I think we all agree it is--then why should it be excluded from electronic mail? Face it, there is _no_ valid reason not to. Just a lot of emotional crap that is, apparently, a hangover from the early days of the internet when there was no Web. It's just atavistic to reject a rich communication medium. Think about it. Every objection we hear is either unsubstantiated or blatantly emotional, or both. "There's no way in freakin' hell that I'll ever let an HTML message anywhere near _my_ in-box!!!!!"
Hey, you just said "I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders". What about the list? Do you trust everybody on it? Because the issue here is using html on the list.
Is it? My issue is styled text, not HTML.
Honestly, I don't understand all the opposition to styled text in email, but I've made my case and will not press it further.
Hmm.... I guess I'm a liar. I just couldn't resist!
¡But it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/
(I wish English used the '¡')
What doesn't exist? You're simply wrong, you know. There most certainly
is such a standard. Do you think I'd go on like this over a fantasy /
hallucination?
-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Randall Schulz